Dems in disbelief, and rightfully so, that the Ambassador to the U.N., of which Russia is a member, has not discussed the "Russian interference" issue with Donald Trump. In other words, who is minding the store? Usually, the Ambassador would take their stance based on the policy that the President dictates. But truth be told, Trump has no policy or cogent thoughts on the "Russian interference", in fact, many of his Admin friends has told reporters that they are frustrated, with Trumps lack of cognizance about the Russian interference. I suspect it's because he thinks that acknowledging it might tend to de-legitimize the election results.

Will Trump ever smell the coffee, and actually do anything about this interference, or are we destined to see it repeat, and at some point, possibly ACTUALLY effect the vote count?

From a couple stories I've read, Trump doesn't separate the collusion investigation (which targets him and his) and the overall Russian attacks on us. We've already seen (in horrific detail in the cabinet meeting) how much his bootlickers are willing to stand up to him...not at all.

The truly surreal thing is watching/listening to my older family members, who are strongly GOP, and who lived through the Soviet era, stand up for Russia and Putin. I don't have to wonder how that would change if it was President Hillary vs Russia...they'd be calling for military action most likely.

The truly surreal thing is watching/listening to my older family members, who are strongly GOP, and who lived through the Soviet era, stand up for Russia and Putin. I don't have to wonder how that would change if it was President Hillary vs Russia...they'd be calling for military action most likely.

Uh....Hilary was calling for action that would have led to war against Russia. Ain't no need to have called for it. She would have been in neck-deep if she made good on her promises after being elected.Not that either of those would have happened.

OK, folks need to take a step back and a deep breath. The US Ambassador to the UN should really only be discussing the election issues with the Russian Ambassador to that body if there's a reason to do so within the context of the UN. We have an ambassador to Russia that can raise the issue directly with their government. They have one here that we can meet with to do the same. If it should be discussed at any level, shouldn't it be there? Why should the UN be involved in that?

Now if it becomes material to something being discussed in the UN, maybe it becomes an issue that should be raised. Like assistance to nations looking to build voting infrastructure. But until then, I would have been somewhat surprised if Susan Rice had been asked to discuss it with her Russian counterpart directly. That's not her job, that's why we have an Ambassador to Russia.

OK, folks need to take a step back and a deep breath. The US Ambassador to the UN should really only be discussing the election issues with the Russian Ambassador to that body if there's a reason to do so within the context of the UN. We have an ambassador to Russia that can raise the issue directly with their government. They have one here that we can meet with to do the same. If it should be discussed at any level, shouldn't it be there? Why should the UN be involved in that?

Now if it becomes material to something being discussed in the UN, maybe it becomes an issue that should be raised. Like assistance to nations looking to build voting infrastructure. But until then, I would have been somewhat surprised if Susan Rice had been asked to discuss it with her Russian counterpart directly. That's not her job, that's why we have an Ambassador to Russia.

Not sure I totally buy that argument, the U.N. to some degree is a peace keeping body, if we can talk to Russia about their interference in Syria in that body, why can't we talk to them about interference in our elections, in that same body? "United" Nations should imply that anything and everything that might interfere with that "United" can and should be discussed. And let's face it, this is not simply a U.S.-Russia issue, others have accused the Russians of interference as well. Maybe a united front on this will sway them from attempting it again.

...why can't we talk to them about interference in our elections, in that same body?

And now you're saying more than was said. We can discuss this (or anything) with Russia there, but the assumption that we should is what's wrong. So allow me to ask the question - why is it that Nicki Haley should have met with the Russian Ambassador to the UN to discuss this specific topic? Why would you ask her to do that rather than discuss the matter directly with the duly appointed representatives of their government we have direct contact with?

Quote:

And let's face it, this is not simply a U.S.-Russia issue, others have accused the Russians of interference as well. Maybe a united front on this will sway them from attempting it again.

I agree. Has this been a topic of discussion at the UN since Ambassador Haley was appointed? I honestly don't know - it's possible that it was.

I'd expect us to use UN Ambassadors when direct contact was difficult, impossible, or otherwise problematic (the Ambassador they have in D.C. is impossible to work with or we don't have diplomatic relations with the country). Absent that, I really don't see why we'd want to shift the responsibility away from direct contact with the government.

...why can't we talk to them about interference in our elections, in that same body?

And now you're saying more than was said. We can discuss this (or anything) with Russia there, but the assumption that we should is what's wrong. So allow me to ask the question - why is it that Nicki Haley should have met with the Russian Ambassador to the UN to discuss this specific topic? Why would you ask her to do that rather than discuss the matter directly with the duly appointed representatives of their government we have direct contact with?

Quote:

And let's face it, this is not simply a U.S.-Russia issue, others have accused the Russians of interference as well. Maybe a united front on this will sway them from attempting it again.

I agree. Has this been a topic of discussion at the UN since Ambassador Haley was appointed? I honestly don't know - it's possible that it was.

I'd expect us to use UN Ambassadors when direct contact was difficult, impossible, or otherwise problematic (the Ambassador they have in D.C. is impossible to work with or we don't have diplomatic relations with the country). Absent that, I really don't see why we'd want to shift the responsibility away from direct contact with the government.

I think her testimony to the Dems shocked them, and the conclusion drawn is that, since she has not discussed this with the Pres, that it surely has not been taken up with Russia, and therein is the rub. The fact that we have discussed much with Russia since the election, BUT have not discussed perhaps the most important issue facing US, namely, their interference in the election cycle. Do you not find it shocking that Trump had been briefed long before his meeting with Kislyak and Lavarov about this interference, and chose to ignore the opportunity to speak to them about it PERSONALLY? Instead, he decides to call Comey a "nut job", and goes on about how "the pressure is off him", regarding the collusion investigation.

...why can't we talk to them about interference in our elections, in that same body?

And now you're saying more than was said. We can discuss this (or anything) with Russia there, but the assumption that we should is what's wrong. So allow me to ask the question - why is it that Nicki Haley should have met with the Russian Ambassador to the UN to discuss this specific topic? Why would you ask her to do that rather than discuss the matter directly with the duly appointed representatives of their government we have direct contact with?

Quote:

And let's face it, this is not simply a U.S.-Russia issue, others have accused the Russians of interference as well. Maybe a united front on this will sway them from attempting it again.

I agree. Has this been a topic of discussion at the UN since Ambassador Haley was appointed? I honestly don't know - it's possible that it was.

I'd expect us to use UN Ambassadors when direct contact was difficult, impossible, or otherwise problematic (the Ambassador they have in D.C. is impossible to work with or we don't have diplomatic relations with the country). Absent that, I really don't see why we'd want to shift the responsibility away from direct contact with the government.

I think her testimony to the Dems shocked them, and the conclusion drawn is that, since she has not discussed this with the Pres, that it surely has not been taken up with Russia, and therein is the rub. The fact that we have discussed much with Russia since the election, BUT have not discussed perhaps the most important issue facing US, namely, their interference in the election cycle. Do you not find it shocking that Trump had been briefed long before his meeting with Kislyak and Lavarov about this interference, and chose to ignore the opportunity to speak to them about it PERSONALLY? Instead, he decides to call Comey a "nut job", and goes on about how "the pressure is off him", regarding the collusion investigation.

While I think the issue is important I think it a huge huge stretch to say it is the most important issue facing the US today (assuming no actual collusion between Trump and the Russians).

I think her testimony to the Dems shocked them, and the conclusion drawn is that, since she has not discussed this with the Pres, that it surely has not been taken up with Russia, and therein is the rub.

Well, if that's the conclusion, it's a really dumb conclusion. We have a pretty large diplomatic corps and a good number of them work with the Russian government in some way, shape, or form. If they haven't discussed this with the Russians, that's an issue.

Quote:

Do you not find it shocking...

Like I said earlier, slow down and take a deep breath. I find a whole lot of the President's statements and behavior shocking. A lot of that involves the Russians, a lot of that involves other things. I simply don't think that this particular instance is worth any time at all. Call me when we learn that our Ambassador to Russia hasn't had any conversations about it or has conversations that state we don't believe it happened.

Not everything is a scandal and it looks bad when we try to make everything so.

I think her testimony to the Dems shocked them, and the conclusion drawn is that, since she has not discussed this with the Pres, that it surely has not been taken up with Russia, and therein is the rub.

Well, if that's the conclusion, it's a really dumb conclusion. We have a pretty large diplomatic corps and a good number of them work with the Russian government in some way, shape, or form. If they haven't discussed this with the Russians, that's an issue.

Quote:

Do you not find it shocking...

Like I said earlier, slow down and take a deep breath. I find a whole lot of the President's statements and behavior shocking. A lot of that involves the Russians, a lot of that involves other things. I simply don't think that this particular instance is worth any time at all. Call me when we learn that our Ambassador to Russia hasn't had any conversations about it or has conversations that state we don't believe it happened.

Not everything is a scandal and it looks bad when we try to make everything so.

What makes you think he has had conversations with the Russians about it, at the moment, we just don't know one way or the other. But I think it is a fair question to ask, given the importance of the interference and its implications. I am not implying this is a scandal, I simply feel it is extremely lax that Niki Haley, who is our ambassador to the U.N. has not spoken to the Russians about this, and furthermore, seems to have never received guidance from Trump on the issue, and it's not like Trump hasn't been briefed on the issue, simply that he has not publicly acknowledged that what they are briefing him about is true.

I took the article in the OP to serve as an indicator of Trump's unwillingness to do anything about it.

It's not even particularly useful for that if you shouldn't expect the person it focuses on to be addressing the issue in the first place. That'd be like focusing on how the administration doesn't have the Secretary of the Interior doing enough to fix the health care bill.

What makes you think he has had conversations with the Russians about it, at the moment, we just don't know one way or the other.

We don't. But that's a question for the people that should be dealing with it, isn't it?

Quote:

...I simply feel it is extremely lax that Niki Haley...

You're certainly permitted to feel however you like. I just don't think this is justified. She's not our Ambassador to Russia and the election issues aren't a topic at the UN. She needn't be given instructions or bring it up as a result.

I think the administration's handling of the Russian issues has been bad to disastrous (particularly for them on the PR front, not to downplay the importance of protecting public faith in elections). I just don't think involving Haley in it is in any way on point.

Dems in disbelief, and rightfully so, that the Ambassador to the U.N., of which Russia is a member, has not discussed the "Russian interference" issue with Donald Trump. In other words, who is minding the store? Usually, the Ambassador would take their stance based on the policy that the President dictates. But truth be told, Trump has no policy or cogent thoughts on the "Russian interference", in fact, many of his Admin friends has told reporters that they are frustrated, with Trumps lack of cognizance about the Russian interference. I suspect it's because he thinks that acknowledging it might tend to de-legitimize the election results.

Will Trump ever smell the coffee, and actually do anything about this interference, or are we destined to see it repeat, and at some point, possibly ACTUALLY effect the vote count?

Back when I voted GOP, the party was actually somewhat concerned with Russian/Soviet espionage.

I took the article in the OP to serve as an indicator of Trump's unwillingness to do anything about it.

It's not even particularly useful for that if you shouldn't expect the person it focuses on to be addressing the issue in the first place. That'd be like focusing on how the administration doesn't have the Secretary of the Interior doing enough to fix the health care bill.

It would be more like an international ambassador knowing government policy about an international problem but... okay.

EDIT: I can't help but feel a State Department would be useful in this regard somehow.

I took the article in the OP to serve as an indicator of Trump's unwillingness to do anything about it.

It's not even particularly useful for that if you shouldn't expect the person it focuses on to be addressing the issue in the first place. That'd be like focusing on how the administration doesn't have the Secretary of the Interior doing enough to fix the health care bill.

You are entitled to your opinion here, and I respect it. We have to agree to disagree here. I do agree with another poster, in that no one in the Administration seems to be taking the bull by the horns here, when clearly the bull should be taken by the horns. No one in the Admin has given a clear answer regarding whether they are doing ANYTHING with regard to the Russian interference, and given the fact that even Trump has been briefed about it now for some 5 months (at least), I'd say that that is cause for alarm.